Seagrass: An Overview

Photo of seagrass. From pixabay.com

Aquatic plants and phytoplankton make up the base of the marine food web, making these species vital to the marine ecosystem. Seagrasses are angiospersms (flowering plants) that from vast meadows on the sea bed that photosynthesise to produce oxygen helping to support a vast range of marine organisms.  There are four families of seagrass that are spread all over the globe with roughly 63 species in total that are found in a range of climates. These extensive marine meadows are ecosystem engineers and help to maintain and improve a range of key ecosystem services that benefit both us and marine biodiversity.

Seagrass plays a vital role in reducing coastal erosion as the dense root structures bind the soil together, stabilising the sediment and protecting coastal settlements. The rhizome roots grow horizontally, binding the top soil that often comes loose from waves. This can also reduce the turbidity as less suspended sediment increases the amount of sunlight available to the seabed, in turn increasing seagrass growth. The dense root system can also stabilise any pollutants, such as toxic metals, in the sediment preventing them from travelling with the current. This improves water quality which helps to maintain biodiversity and improve human health, particularly in coastal regions.

As seagrass are photosynthetic, they help to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere helping to reduce the impact of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Seagrass meadows account for 10% of carbon storage in the ocean, totalling 27.4 million tonnes annually. This is more than terrestrial forests suggesting that the maintenance of seagrass will have a greater impact on helping to maintain surface temperatures, reducing sea levels rising and reducing ocean acidification. The high amount of carbon is also a reason for high soil fertility within seagrass meadows and has previously been used as fertiliser. This also encourages juvenile plant growth increasing the seagrass population further.

One major threat to segarass meadows is from the boating industry and propellers and anchors can damage the plant or uproot entire sections of the meadow. Segarass provides a physical habitat for many species, including many seahorses, that are at risk of a reduced population, subsequently reducing the genetic diversity of the species. The lack of seagrass growth can also result in eutrophication caused by algal blooms. This causes oxygen in the water to decline reducing biodiversity within these areas even further. Seagrass is also home to several commercial species, such as shrimp and scallops, and the protection of these habitats can help improve and maintain a sustainable fishing industry in coastal region. With proper management, fisherman can have limited access to these areas and quotas should be enforced at the maximum sustainable yield to prevent any damage to seagrass. Reduced seagrass cover not only reduces habitat, but it also decreases the rate of carbon sequestration, a possible increase in turbidity and a decrease in coastal water quality as well as several more ecosystem services being impacted.

To evaluate, seagrass meadows are important marine species that are often over looked and are often seen as seaweed and are therefore not prioritised. However, recently many of these areas have gotten effective management schemes that will hopefully contribute to an improvement in the quality of these habitats. I feel it is important that primary producers within the marine food web are conserved correctly in order to conserve species at higher trophic levels. 

Resources - 

• Project Seagrass: https://seagrass.org.uk/

• The Wildlife Trust: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/habitats/marine/seagrass

• Current state of seagrass ecosystem services: Research and policy integration: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964569117304325?casa_token=dKzVqvrcaLsAAAAA:gIPbS_1tHhrDm_cFu5LXpIHowIh75f0u4FKqew-B_yWRjwFnB0Uuo3hACgzS8gsVGYA7dLnl

• Critical gaps in seagrass protection reveal the need to address multiple pressures and cumulative impacts: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569119303035

Do zoos really aid conservation?

it is widely believed that zoos help to grow the populations of endangered species and conserve endangered ones by developing breeding programmes that have saved species including the Socorro Dove from extinction. Zoos have data bases showing the recorded family and breeding history of each individual to ensure the gene pool can grow and there is no risk or inbreeding which can lead to a population collapse. These often involve either the exchange in individuals between zoos or the gifting of genetic material that can be used for artificial insemination. The main end goal of these programmes is advertised as release into the wild or sanctuaries but I wanted to look at a few example to see if this really was the case.

Regardless if you agree with the ethics of zoos and these programmes, you cannot argue there have been many captive breeding programmes that have been successful such as the Amur Tiger breeding programme in Europe that currently has 287 individuals within the programme.There have been cases of species being extinct in the wild that have increased in population size such as Przewalski's horses that have been extinct in the wild since the 1960's but a successful reintroduction programme the species conservation status was updated in 2008. There are also accreditation programmes for zoos to ensure that they are regulated and the animals are healthy and cared for properly. This also means the breeding programmes are monitored and have to be approved by a regulating body to ensure that no inbreeding or crossbreeding occurs as this will impact the health and life expectancy of any offspring. Despite these, different species are crossbred in zoos to attract visitors and increase profits. One example would be a liger  which is a hybrid between a lion and tiger which are bred artificially in captivity as in the wild they are found on different continents making it impossible for them to be bred naturally. The USA has the greatest number with 30 with many of these cases being claimed to be an accident, however it is standard policy to keep different species separate so these claims are mostly likely false or are cases of neglect towards the proper care of animals.

There are several disadvantage to there being zoos open to the public the first of which being that animals become dependant on humans or used to their presence which can put them at risk of being hunted if they are released into the wild. This also means they can lose valuable skills such as the ability to hunt or source food on their own which, again, will greatly reduce their chance of survival. There is research to suggests that the survival rate for captive breed carnivores (i.e. lions and tigers) is only 33% as they have not learnt behavioural and survival instincts. This is because in the wild individuals are competing for mates, hunting grounds and food. Individuals born in the wild have learnt survival skills from their mother and others in the wild, putting them at an advantage over those raised in captivity. Therefore it can be argued that funds should be invested into conservation of wild habitats and species in the wild rather than of those in captivity.

I feel that is should be made clear the difference between a sanctuary/rehabilitation centre and a zoo. As a zoo dies aid conservation but has a focus on engagement with the public and ticket sales with education and conservation as a second priority. Rehabilitation centres take injured individuals from the wild for a short period of time with the aim of releasing them back into their natural habitat. In my opinion, rehabilitation centres are a better alternative to zoos and will educate people on local wildlife rather than those from the other side of the world. In terms of aiding conservation, you could argue that they do but they need to be regulated to ensure all the individuals have enrichment, a healthy diet and enough space to live. There should also be a chance for individuals to see their natural habitat if they have good enough survival chances but rehabilitation are by far a much better option.

References-
http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/conservation-breeding-programmes
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/p/przewalskis-horse/
https://www.zsl.org/conservation-initiatives/conservation-breeding/amur-tiger-european-breeding-programme
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2008/01/predators-captivity-habitat-animals/

Is the honey industry killing the bees?

Photo from pexels.com

We are all aware of the importance of maintaining a healthy pollinator population. We would lose over a third of our crops without them. Bees and other pollinators do this by transferring pollen between flowers allowing new seeds to be produced and dispersed, increasing crop and wild plant populations. Between 1996 and 2016, the European honey bee population declined by 25% as a result of colony collapse disorder (CCD) which has been attributed to a range of causes, including the removal of wild meadows, pesticides and parasites. Many of us believe that by buying honey we are supporting the growth of this declining population but is this really the case?

The average honey bee colony contains 50,000 bees, with the majority being worker bees whose role is to collect nectar for the hive. One hive can produce 14 KG of honey. That seems like an awful lot for one hive so is it really an issue for us to have some honey? To make 0.45 KG of honey the hive will have to get to two million flowers and travel around 55,000 miles to do this only for us to steal the majority of their food collected which, in my opinion, doesn't seem very fair to the the poor hard working bees. With CCD increasing in concern, we should be giving the bees the best chance for survival and that means ensuring that they have enough food to survive and reproduce.

To increase honey production, some beekeepers, mainly in the US, have resorted to artificial insemination to increase the number of drones in the hive, thus increasing the pollen collected. Although very few beekeepers are doing this is does mean killing at least one drone in order to collect the semen. The head and first segment of the body are crushed in order for the muscles to contract, making it easy to collect the semen. The queen bee is then held down via hooks in order to be inseminated which can lead to injury and possibly death of the queen. There have also been some cases where the queens wings have been clipped to prevent any chance of her flying away. With bee population becoming so scarce, should we be killing bees in order to artificially increase honey production for human consumption?

Despite these issues there are many other reasons for a declining bee population that don't involve honey. There is an argument that bee farms increase populations by increasing the amount of hives, planting flowers and reducing pesticides to increase bee populations. Bees in honey hives will also pollinate the surrounding area, helping to increase plant biodiversity which is the base of every food web, in turn supporting larger mammals in the area. It has also never been proven that there is a link between honey production and declining bee populations and there are many things we can do to limit the impact honey production has on bees. One thing could be to ban artificial insemination and limit the amount that can be taken form a single hive. So this begs the question, should governments be doing more to reduce our impact rather than stop eating honey altogether?

Personally, I think that ethically it isn't right for us to take the honey from the bees especially seeing as the entire hive is built around it. There are so many other alternatives, such as maple syrup, agave and date syrup, all derived from plants essentially cutting out the middle man. With bees being so important and becoming so scarce, shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to protect them?


Resources -
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-complex-worldwide-bee-declines.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zg4dwmn
https://friendsoftheearth.uk/bees/honey-ethical-guide
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/honey-factory-farmed-bees/

Seal Rescue Ireland

A photo taken of Churro, a female grey seal

So for my summer I'm interning at Ireland's only seal sanctuary, Seal Rescue Ireland which I am really enjoying. I have already learnt so much about the two types of seal found within Irish waters. The first species of seal is the Grey seal. These guys can reach up to 300 KG and the pups, that are born between September and December, are born at roughly 14 KG. The pups are born with a white fur called lanugo which is not waterproof meaning they have to spend the first three weeks on shore with the mother coming to shore to nurse frequently. So if you see a small white seal on shore please keep a distance and phone a wildlife centre if you're worried because mum is more than likely close by. The second species of seal (that is much cuter in my opinion) is the Common seal which is a lot smaller only reaching 130 KG. They are currently in pupping season and are born during the summer months and are able to go straight into the water after they are born but we still advise that if you find one on the shore to follow the same rules as stated above.

So why do we need a rescue centre? Well there are several reasons that seals end up in our care the first of which being plastic ingestion. We have had numerous seals come into the centre with single use plastic within the system, especially shiny piece such as crisp packets that can look like fish. Most of the time the seal throws up the plastic but we have found it stuck in digestive systems which has resulted in the death of a few seals. One way we reduce our plastic is by making EcoBricks which are plastic bottles stuffed with soft plastic that is densely packed so no air is present. They are used in less developed rural areas as actual bricks but we use our to make benches for school tours. If you want to learn how to make them click here. Another major issue is orphaning of pups as they are similar to baby birds in the sense that if the mother does not recognise the scent of the pup or becomes scared she will abandon her pup and self preserve.  Dogs in particular scare seals and should be kept on leads if you are in areas where seals are found. Dogs and seals are also very closely related and and cause disease to spread quickly between them which will not only harm the seal but also put your dog at risk aswell. To prevent this we ask that you do not touch the seal. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. We ask that you keep a distance and call a wildlife centre (or us) and you will be advised what to do. It is likely that the mamma seal is close by in the water so we will send volunteers to watch for roughly an hour to see if the mum can be spotted. If we cannot see her we will then take the seal pup in.

The purpose of SRI is to take in sick, injured or abandoned pups with the aim of releasing them back into the wild and we are more like a seal hospital than a zoo. The centre is run mainly on donations and only get 5% of the costs covered by the Irish government. This is enough to treat roughly six seals but on average we treat 150 seals annually. Each seal costs roughly 2000 Euros to treat as this covers medicine, employment, energy needed, and fish (lots of fish) so to raise money I am doing a run in July. I would appreciate any donations to help the seals below. Please check out the website below and read all the amazing things we do and if anyone is visiting County Wexford come visit and we would love you give you a tour. You can also adopt a seal here for 30 Euros where you get a pack of information and pictures of your pup with updates on how they are doing. 


Donate to my fundraiser to help the seals.
https://www.facebook.com/donate/640533469797106/

Seal Rescue Ireland website - http://www.sealrescueireland.org/

Rewilding: The most basic but effective conservation technique?

It's exciting to see a book about wildlife conservation in the UK being a top seller and highly advertised in bookstores. If you haven't heard of the book 'Wilding' yet by Isabella Tree I would highly recommend you pick it up. The book talks about the conservation technique of rewilding (obviously) in the Knepp estate in West Sussex and how this technique can be replicated in other habitats. The book defines this technique as essentially doing nothing. It is removing all intensive management and allowing natural succession of a habitat to occur with minimal human impact or intervention. The idea is that it will increase the population of the native species and possibly attract new species. This can also include the reintroduction of native species that are no longer found in that habitat (similar to my blogpost on beaver reintroduction). However, this is sparking some debate, particularly with locals when this technique is done on open land (or commons) such as Dartmoor which begs the question is a technique that we should be implementing more?

One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.

Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.

The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.

However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.


Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon. 

Scottish Beaver Reintroduction

The European Beaver that became extinct in the UK in the 16th century after being hunted to extinction for their fur and medicinal purposes. They excrete castoreum which is an oil originally used to treat headaches. Reintroduction programmes for this beautiful mammal began in the early 2000's in Scotland with aims of sustaining a healthy population in order to reverse years of hunting.

A photo of the Eurasian Beaver. Photo from CreamTeam.be

The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.

There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.

There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.

Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.


Resources -

•  https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/union-reiterates-opposition-reintroduction-beavers-tayside-following-snh-report
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/beaver-trial-faqs/when-do-beavers-start-breeding-and-are-they-around-all-year/
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-and-wild-places/saving-species/beavers
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38096751

The Importance of Peatlands

Photo of a peatland habitat. from leeds.ac.uk

In the UK, 10% of our land area are covered in peatlands and are vital not only to our economy and wildlife but as a form of carbon sequestration. Despite these factors, peatlands are given little care, unless designated by governments, as they are often just seen as bogs with nutrient rich soil making them ideal spots for the growing agricultural industry. However, the elevated water table means that drainage is required which removes the required vegetation (also know as bog builders)  that have lead to a dramatic decline in global peatland habitats. So what is being done to reverse this and why are these habitats so important?

So peatlands are essentially a soft, nutrient rich soil that forms over a long period of time, in a similar way to coal, under anaerobic conditions. These habitats also acts as a large store of water that leads to the colonisation of Sphagnum mosses that lead to the development of peat habitats such as swamps and wetlands. In the UK there are 10 key peatland Sphagnum species with most common being Baltic Bog-moss that is protected under UK legislation. These mosses have a sponge like structure meaning they store large quantities of water, preventing the surrounding area from drying up. This specific property also helps to prevent any decay and decomposition aiding the accumulation of peat and helping to maintain these diverse habitats. The bog building plants also help to shape the habitat by creating pool and hammock structures that increase the water table, making more water more available to plants on the surface. If these species are removed, it would cause a decline in peat formation, water supply and affect the topography of the habitat.

Global, peatlands are currently storing 500 GT (which is more than all forests) of carbon as a result of peat being made of dead and decaying vegetation which is stored instead of being released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. When peatlands are drained and deforested, that stored carbon is then released into the atmosphere so imagine the damage that would be done if all the peatlands around the world were gone? RIP polar bears. These habitats also act as a store of water which not only benefits biodiversity but can also increase ground water levels in the surrounding area and the moss structure helps to filter the groundwater. This means that our water reservoirs would face serious decline in these peatland habitats continue to decrease in size and quality.

Peatlands tend to have a low species diversity due to the habitat creating a small niche so only specialised organism can live there. As the habitat is currently declining many of the species are subsequently following, including the Common Scoter and the Mountain Hare, and the specialised habitat requirements of these species mean they cannot colonise other habitats. As these habitats are declining the competition between and amongst species is increasing therefore reducing the population However, action is being taken especially regarding the protection of breeding birds as several peat habitats, including the North Pennies, have been designated a SPA (Special Protection Area). These areas are maintained and managed in order to increase specific bird populations. Most of these habitats are also listed a SSSI's (sites of special scientific interest) which are areas managed by Natural England due to their biological or geological interest. This ensures that land owners take all the necessary precautions to protect these areas, including many peatland habitats, from damage.

Despite vast restoration efforts, I feel that the importance of these areas is not emphasised to the general public, mainly because they aren't necessarily as aesthetically pleasing as the bright and vibrant tropical rainforests we see. Do I think more could be done? Absolutely. However, the UK government is making good efforts to designated and protect these areas but could invest in future expansion projects to increase the size of our peatlands.


Resources

• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-hydrology 
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/mosses-and-liverworts/sphagnum-moss
• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-biodiversity
• http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5905

Mangroves: The Natural Defence for Coastlines

Figure 1 - A map highlighting the distribution of mangrove forests (in black) throughout the globe (Romañach, 2017)

Across the intertidal zone are a collection of mangrove forests located along the coastlines of equatorial countries (figure 1), the largest being The Sundarbans in Bangladesh covering a total of 140,000 ha. These forests are often referred to as 'the roots of the sea' due to the complex aerial root system that spend the majority of the time above sea level enabling the plant to survive in the anaerobic soil, making these ecosystems tolerant to a hypersaline environment. With 40% of mangrove species labelled threatened by the IUCN, these coastal areas could be at greater risk of coastal erosion, storm surges and sea level rise. It is important these issues are understood to aid conservation of global coastlines as well as these beautiful unique habitats.

Figure 2 - A photograph showing the dense root systems of mangrove forests that reduce erosion 

Erosion is defined as “the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents”  and the complex, uneven aerial root system (figure 2) of mangroves reduces erosion of the shore. Mangroves have reportedly reduced the height waves up to 66% and slow the flow of seawater as the vegetation acts as a buffer between the land and sea. This enables 70-80% of incoming sediment to settle resulting, increasing biomass. This helps to increase the fertility in these harsh environments, increasing biodiversity, as mangrove soils have a high nutrient content. This gradual accumulation of biomass, over a long-time period, allows peat to form which is a long-term carbon sink helping to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The dense roots bind soil particles together meaning an increase in mangrove trees means that less soil particles will become dislodged by incoming waves. This reduces the risk of flooding and damage to infrastructure in coastal communities. This risk increased in Guyana as after the removal of mangroves, coastal erosion increased 3 m annually.

The dense vegetation helps to reduce the impact of hurricanes and tsunamis inland by reducing the force of the storm surge. Figure 3 shows a storm surge is a large increase in sea water due to extreme weather, that often carries debris, that causes damage to infrastructure and flooding. The complex structure of mangrove forests increases the frictional resistance resulting in a drop in the force of the storm surge and slowing the flow rate of the wave. Storm surges are the biggest cause of damage during storms affecting causing large scale damage to properties, roads, biodiversity and coastal erosion. Studies have reported that mangroves can reduce the amplitude of a storm surge by 6 to 10 cm/km resulting in a decline in inland flooding and may fewer individuals at risk. However, the force from the waves can damage the mangroves often resulting in uprooting and damaging trunks so the health of mangrove forests should be monitored to ensure future storm surges have a reduced impact.

Figure 3 - A graphic showing the large increase in wave size during a storm surge 

Not only do mangroves provide a habitat to endangered species, including the Bengal tiger, but there are also major benefits to the human population as they reduce the risk to coastal settlements. Despite these major benefits, deforestation of these unique habitats is still on the rise due to the growth in aquaculture and the high value of mangrove wood potentially putting coastlines at risk.

Bibliography

• Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 277-289. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301588#bib42
• ICUN. (2010, April 8th). Mangrove forests in worldwide decline. Retrieved from ICUN Threatened List: http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/mangrove-forests-in-worldwide-decline
• Leggett, M. (2011, April 5th). Carbon grasped by Mangrove roots vastly underestimated. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from Earth Times: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/carbon-grasped-mangrove-roots-vastly-underestimated/662/
• NOAA. (2018, June 25th). What is storm surge? Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from National Ocean Service: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
• Oxford University. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10th, 2018
• Romañach, S. (2017). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72-82. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301710#fig
• Sivasothi, N. (2001). How plants cope in the mangroves. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore: http://mangrove.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/text/1043.htm
• Spalding, M., Mclvor, A., & Tonneijck, F. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence. Cambridge: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf
• United Nations. (2017). The Sundarbans. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798

The Impacts of Sailing

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_(sport)

The boating and sailing industry has been growing over recent years with many of us participating as a way to connect with oceans and nature. This growth has aloud us to go scuba diving and snorkelling in areas that otherwise wouldn't be accessible as well as take part in a seemingly fun team sport with boat races even being included in the Olympics. However, with out oceans and the creature that call them home being in great danger, this got me thinking if this recreational activity could have a grave environmental impact.

In recent years there has been evidence to suggest that boats have caused a decline in dissolved oxygen, stunting the growth of sea plants that in turn affect the entire food chain. The propellers  and rudders bring up sediment from the sea bed which reduces the turbidity (i.e. it stops sunlight from reaching the seabed). This reduces the amount of photosynthesis that can occur and reduces the amount of oxygen available meaning that habitat cannot sustain larger fish populations, especially in shallow waters. With nutrients also being brought to the surface, large amounts of boats have also been linked to algal blooms which also reduce the turbidity but, in some cases, produce products that are toxic to both marine and terrestrial organisms. Safe to say that the reduced turbidity caused by high speed boats has a major impact on marine life and is something that can be easily avoided if we anchor these boats further out, away from shallow waters with less chance of the motors touching the sediment.

Another major impact is the potential for fuels to spill and leak into the surrounding environment. We have all seen those photos of sea birds drenched in oil and boats have the potential do do this on a much smaller scale, particularly if the boat is driven and managed poorly. When the boat is stationary, there is significant potential for small amount of partially burnt fuel to leak into the surrounding area. Smaller fuel particles are more likely to be ingested by marine life therefore there is great risk for bio accumulation up the food chain. Needless to say these chemicals are toxic to marine life. These chemical can also affect both the biotic and abiotic conditions of the habitat, making them less habitable for the species that live there. One potential change is pH and if it were to increase in acidity (or decline in pH) could mean damage to crustaceans with the acidic water dissolving shells and other carbonaceous structures including corals.

Although sailing can increase tourism and GDP, there is also the physical damage done to habitats. Sailing and other marine activities produce large amount of litter that end up in the ocean which included nets, ropes and plastic bags. With 43% of all boat activity being recreational sailing in Australia alone, it it fair to say that the majority of the waste from boats come from the sailing industry. Marine debris poses a huge threat to wildlife with organisms becoming trapped in discarded nets as well as smothering coral and other sea plants. Not to mention the fact that some organisms mistake plastic for food with sea turtles in particular mistaking plastic bags for jelly fish. The boats themselves have also done physical damage to marine environments with boat anchors being the biggest offender. Anchors can damage the sea bed but uprooting plants, disturbing bottom feeders and destroying coral.

The main solution to this would be to designate protection areas with no or limited access to areas with high biodiversity. However evidence suggests that this requires greater regulation with 43% of sailing boats in Australia ignoring the Marine Protection Areas. I'm not saying we should stop ailing as it is a way for us to grown closer to our marine environment and fall in love with the beautiful marine wildlife. I am however suggesting we act responsibly by staying within designated zones, ensure the boat is maintained to a high standard and stop treating the ocean as our personal landfill.

Resources -

• Environmental Protection, The Environmental Impacts of Boating, May 2017, https://eponline.com/articles/2017/03/27/the-environmental-impacts-of-boating.aspx 
• Brynes. T, Science Direct, 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615002413#kwrds001

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

https://climatevulture.com/category/blog-topics/agriculture/

Climate change is a major global issue with it being a key talking point amongst governments and IGO's (*ahem America*). Everyone is aware of the obvious contributors including exhaust emissions and fossil fuels but recently it has been suggested that animal agriculture may be a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than originally thought. There has been evidence to suggest that as our meat consumption has grown so have our carbon emissions but this could also be due to the growth of industry, population and a greater dependence on fossil fuels. So does this mean documentaries like Cowspiracy are wrong?

It is suggested that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. With the addition of the byproducts, it could be as high as 51% with a projected increase of 80% by 2050. These byproducts include transportation, food and heating. Most of these emissions are methane that are produced by the growing cattle industry and bad land management and with methane having a global warming potential 86 times greater than carbon dioxide, it is no wonder livestock are essentially destroying out planet. Methane is produces in the stomach of cows and sheep as the ingested plants undergo fermentation that produces methane as a by-product essentially meaning cow farts are destroying the environment. It doesn't take a genius to realise that as the "need" for beef grows so will these toxic methane emissions. In fact methane emissions from livestock are similar to those produced by natural gas, questioning if we should be shifting from promoting electric cars to a more plant based diet.

With animal agriculture covering an estimated 45% of land, livestock is a primary contributor to habitat loss and deforestation on a global scale. Globally, all agriculture is responsible for 80% of deforestation, with the biggest causes for habitat destruction in the Amazon basin being cattle ranches and soya plantations. Although crops are a cause for deforestation, we will see a very small percentage of these yields as most will be used for animal feed. In order to achieve maximum yield and profit, cattle require a large amount of food. If we think about this in terms of tropic levels, as we move up a level (or a stage in the food chain) 90% of energy is lost so we need more cows to produce the amount of beef we need to meet our energy needs. This means more cattle ranches and more animal feed. As most of us are aware, forests are an important carbon sink and help to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect and if agriculture continues to grow, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Did you know a farm with 2,500 cattle produces the same amount of waste as over 410,000 people? If it is disposed of incorrectly it can result in anaerobic digestion, again resulting in the release of methane. Another side effect is eutrophication reducing nutrient availability, creating algal blooms and a decline in biodiversity. Not to mention the fact it is a direct cause of water pollution and poses a huge health risk to animals and humans alike.

So overall do I believe a plant based diet will help reduce carbon emissions. Yes, all the facts support this. However it is important that we also understand that we have a meat eating culture spanning thousands of years and we have been taught our whole lives nutrition must contain animal products. Therefore this change cannot be expected to happen overnight but even if you only eat meant 3 or 4 times a week, you will still have significantly cut your carbon footprint.



Resources -

• https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/ 
• http://stockfreeorganic.net/deforestation-livestock-destroying-the-living-earth/
• https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
• http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
• https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
• https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/901V0100.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP
• https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf

Dear Hollywood, Stop Making Us Afraid of Sharks

Photo of a Great White Shark
Photo from https://wall.alphacoders.com/by_sub_category.php?id=206047&name=Great+White+Shark+Wallpapers

I love sharks. I think they're some of the most beautiful and interesting species in our oceans which is the main reason I want to study them for my dissertation. My dream is to be able to travel to Australia and study the Great White and work on conserving them. However, this seems to be an unpopular opinion with 39% of adults in the UK saying they HATE sharks, with just under half of these justifying their answer with the argument that they attack humans. Granted the slightly scary appearance, particularly the large teeth, can scare some but could the main reason be the fact they often come off a vicious monsters in blockbuster films such as The Shallows. These films are designed to scare us and keep us on the edge of our seats and as a result they have been mad out to these giant human killers that isn't really the case. I feel the majority of selachophobia, or a fear of sharks, has been brought about by the growing genre of shark attack films.

Firstly, I am not saying that shark attacks do not occur because they do and beach goers in shark waters should be cautious. Everyone is aware of the tragic case of surfer Bethany Hamilton who had her arm bitten off in 2003 by a tiger shark. However, despite what Hollywood will have us believe, the danger from dying as a result of a shark attack is far smaller than we may initially think. Did you know you have a 1 in 3,748,067 chance of dying by shark attack? To put this into perspective, the risk of dying of heart disease is 1 in 5 and dying as a result of a car accident is 1 in 84. Even your chance of drowning is 1 in 1,134 making the ocean itself far more dangerous than the scariest creatures in them. In fact there are on average 4 sharks related deaths a year which is 16 less than deaths caused by cows (both in the USA). Another false fact seemingly portrayed is that we're a tasty snack for sharks, particularly Great Whites but if they bite us, they tend to spit us out because our bones are too dense for their slow digestive systems. In fact the only reason they bite us (in the very few cases that there actually are of shark bites) is out of curiosity. Although all sharks are carnivores, roughly 70-80% of their diet is made up of small fish making the chance of being bitten by a shark very slim. With over 465 known species, very few even pose a threat to humans and even the largest species (the Whale Shark) are actually filter feeders meaning they feed in a similar way to most whales with a diet mainly made from plankton. They also range in size the smallest being the Pygmy shark at 7-inches long suggesting the Hollywood image that shark are giant hunters lurking along our coastlines may be inaccurate.

Comparision of the size of different shark species.
Photo from https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/511299363927109368/

As a matter of fact, we need sharks. Firstly, sharks contribute to ecotourism that help boost local and national economies. In Fiji alone, 78% of all visiting divers participate in some form of shark diving which created US$5.9 million in taxes in 2010. In fact, the shark-diving industry in Fiji is valued at US$42.2 million annually. This isn't taking into account the 'economic multipliers' that benefit the local economies including accommodation for tourists as well as tourists spending money in local businesses. In fact in Ganbaai (South Africa)50% of all local business sales are related in some way to Great White Sharks. Sharks also play a very important role within the ecosystem as they keep the food webs in balance by maintaining healthy fish populations. Sharks are often the top predators and are often referred to as keystone species as the health of the ecosystem can be estimated by monitoring the shark population. Without the sharks, the prey populations (i.e. small fish) would get too big causing overgrazing of the sea plants therefore reducing the amount of oxygen available. Not to mention this limits the damage to coral reefs from large fish populations. Believe it or not, they can actually limit or stop the spread of disease as they are more likely to prey on the weak, sick and older fish meaning they stop outbreaks and a declining population. Did you also know that sharks have helped to design wet suits? Biomimetics is using a natural structure (or an organism) in science and engineering so shark skins were studied to create the aerodynamic style of wet suits. These are just three ways sharks actually benefit us and the planet. I could write lists and lists about all the ways we need sharks but it would take forever to read and also that;s a lot of effort to write.

So why are we so afraid of sharks if they don't actually pose a huge threat to us, in fact it has been proven they benefit us. Personally I feel that they are turned into villains by the film industry. As money is the priority for this industry (well actually most industries) scary things sell so any predator is at risk of being displayed inaccurately with little scientific evidence. Could this be increasing the amount of shark hunting? That however is up for debate. 

Resources - 

• Charlotte Chivers, Why are we so afraid of sharks?, One Poll, November 2015, http://www.onepoll.com/why-are-we-so-afraid-of-sharks/
• Elizabeth Palermo, Why are people so afraid of sharks? Live Science, July 2016, https://www.livescience.com/51579-fear-of-sharks-psychology.html
• Elaina Zachos, Why are we so afraid of sharks? There's a scientific explanation., National Geographic, January 2018, https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/sharks-attack-fear-science-psychology-spd/ 
• WildAid, Ecotourism: Dollars and Sense, Shark Savers, 2012, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-and-ecotourism/
• WildAid, Shark's Role In The Oceans, Shark Savers, 2009, http://www.sharksavers.org/en/education/the-value-of-sharks/sharks-role-in-the-ocean/

The Five Plants You NEED To Grow

With urbanisation continuing to rise and open green areas in rapid decline, how we use our gardens is becoming increasingly important for the wildlife and the environment. Around 1,000 of our agricultural plants rely on pollinators to grow to increasing the habitat available for birds, bees and bats is important for our food system and larger populations leads to a higher food production. They are also the basis of the ecosystem and the food chains as they contribute to the growth of wild fruits and green plants that feed the primary consumers such as rabbits and wild mice. They can also protect habitats of large economic and cultural significance. Experts say that the majority of plants should be native to this country (around 70%) to replicate the natural habitat of British wildlife. Another thing to remember is to allow plants and organic matter to decay to attract other invertebrates ( such as woodlice) and larger mammals like hedge hogs that are also becoming more vulnerable.  So, here are the top five plants to include in your garden to help see these populations rise.

Lavender - 
Not only will these add a beautiful colour to your garden and smell amazing, but pollinators love them. They provide a large amount of nectar and pollen which can increase bee and butterfly populations in particular. Ladybirds also love them which eat pests such as aphids and the smell also repels other pests and can act as a natural form of pest control which could also benefit any vegetable patches you may choose to grow.

Photo from https://www.theflowerexpert.com/content/giftflowers/flowersandfragrances/lavenders

Holly - 
The holly tree is an evergreen plant meaning it grows all year round and provide a food source for birds in particular and can ensure populations survive winter. With over 400 species of the holly plant, it attracts a wide range of wildlife from thrushes and blackbirds to butterflies and moths. Due to its evergreen nature it is used for nesting and can be used by small mammals during the hibernation season.

Photo from https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/home-garden/gardening/plants/trees/how-to-grow-holly-and-get-berries

Hawthorn - 
Hawthorns are one of the most common shrubs in the UK and attract around 150 species of insects and can provide a habitat for birds such as Goldfinches and Thrushes as it produces berries during the autumn. When the flowers bloom during the summer months, bumble bees love this plant and it also provides a habitat for ladybirds and earwigs. It is also a great food plant for caterpillar and can boost butterfly populations in your garden.

Photo from https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/english-hawthorn

Honeysuckle - 
Honeysuckle is so important to a wide range of species, particularly pollinators due to the incredibly sweet nectar it produces. . It also is important to the rare white admiral butterfly as the caterpillars will only feed on this plant. It also provides food and shelter for small mammals, in particular dormice.

Photo from https://www.gardenia.net/plant/Lonicera-fragrantissima-Sweetest-Honeysuckle

Thyme - 
Experts encourage gardeners to include a wild range of plants including herbs. Thyme is a great one to grow as it provides nectar for bees and other pollinators but the ground cover it provides creates a safe habitat for other small invertebrates including detritivores that can improve the soil quality and organic matter content.

Photo from http://www.johnnyseeds.com/herbs/thyme/orange-thyme-seed-2934.html

Obviously, I'm not saying that if you don't plant these you don;t care about the environment because there are a range of factors to take into account such as the type of property you own, allergies and any pets you may have. If you have a large garden be sure to include a range of plants from trees, shrubs, flowers and herbs. Also don't forget to include grass as some butterflies have been known to lay eggs in the tall blades. In my opinion, we all need to be doing our bit to improve insect populations as they are vital for our way of life so even just planting a few flower pots along a balcony of a flat is a great start and should be encouraged.

Is A No-Growth Economy The Answer?

When I first discovered my passion for nature, I never thought I would have to study economics . In fact I thought these two subjects could never coexist. In fact it's actually quite surprising that the majority of economic growth comes from the ecosystem. Our economy is built on manufacturing and consumers paying for the manufactured goods. We build our economy on exports and the more the produce, the more we sell and the more we grow. The main question is what happens to these goods we we don't need them? The answer is they go back into the ecosystem as waste which can be through landfill or pollution.

Countries develop their economy by increasing production and thereby increasing consumption. However, in order to do this a large amount of extraction has to happen in order to get the necessary fuel and resources. And how do we get this? Deforestion, mining and basically any process that kills wildlife and causes our biodiversity to decline. 

So this poses the question, can the economy and the ecosystem grow and develop together? Short answer is no. As one grows the other shrinks and with us prioritising the economy, the ecosystem is continuing to decline. The theory and idea of ecological economics doesn't suggest we revert to a preindustrial society with no technology, but states we should maintain our current economy to avoid and limit future extraction. This will help to preserve our natural resource and the earth for future generations. This will also limit the disposal of waste going back into the ecosystem. If we can also reuse and develop our waste it will also limit the extraction process. Ecological economics calls for a shift from conventional economics to stop economic growth because we simply cannot sustain it. We need to stop growing. I mean imagine if every single country reached the same level of development as the UK or America. It simply is not possible. We need better allocation and management of our natural resources to save our planet.

So to summer use, the economy and the ecosystem are connected and if the economy grows (as every government wants to), the ecosystem will decline. Instead of making the production system an open system, it needs to become closed with a focus on reusing and repurposing waste rather than disposal. Society also needs to shift away from a consumer based economy, in a sense. We need to stop buying what we want and what we need. We need to reduce all the unnecessary stuff we have that damages our environment. 

Only One Earth

We only have one Earth. No plan B, no second planet tucked away at the back of the solar system. So why are we destroying it? Money? Development? Or are we just oblivious to the fact we need to change? 

From a young age the natural world has fascinated me. It started with a love for animals which made me want to become a vet and help save our beautiful companion animals. This developed into a love for being outdoors and a want to explore all the world has to offer by experiencing all the amazing creatures I'm their natural habitat. But as I grew older I realised the danger the natural world was in and the scale of it. I remember being horrified in school learning that people we willing to chop down our rainforests and damage our oceans for fuel and resources that would eventually run out and what made it even worse was that the burning of these fuels isincreasing climate change. This made me want to take my passion for the environment further and lead me to !y current uni course environmental science. I decided I was going to do my part to protect and conserve the diverse wildlife on our planet because once it's gone it's gone. 

I wanted to create this blog to share my thoughts and opinions on current environmental issues in the hope others will learn to help our planet and achieve a more sustainable lifestyle. I also felt this is the perfect way of sharing everything I learn at uni and apply my leaning to the real world. 

So join me, a passionate tree hugging student, towards my goal of a more sustainable lifestyle and I hope you leaning something while you're here.